GROW MORE,NEW DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6989/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not fully prove its claim, it should not have been denied in its entirety. Therefore, the claim was allowed to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income exemption under Section 10(1) of Rs. 30,98,899/-. The lower authorities denied this claim, stating the assessee failed to prove the agricultural nature of the land and the running of a plant nursery to their satisfaction.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's claim for agricultural income exemption was substantiated and if the denial by lower authorities was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 10

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088645890(1), dated 27.04.2026

ITA No. 6989/Del/2026

involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal is that of denial of its Section 10(1) agricultural income exemption claimed u/s 10 of the Act of Rs. 30,98,899/- in both the lower authority’s respective orders. Suffice to say, its case accordingly is that the instant issue is no more res integra in the light of fact that they have accepted the very exemption claims in assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the assessee and the Revenue, respectively. I find no reason in the assessee’s case in its entirety. It is made clear that although it has claimed that the land in issue admeasuring one bigha, situated in the revenue estate of village Khamba, Joddhpur Highway, Tehsil – Ahore, Jalore District, Rajasthan forms part of its capital in balance sheet, and that a plant nursery is being run therefrom, the fact remains that it could not plead and prove the same in both the lower proceedings to the entire satisfaction of the learned departmental 2

ITA No. 6989/Del/2026

authorities. I am of the considered view in this backdrop that its claim could not have been denied in its entirety as well in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is thus deemed appropriate to accept the impugned claim to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs. The assessee get relief of Rs. 20,19,899/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow.

5.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

6.

The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/08/2026. Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 10(1)

All 394 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →